Steve Comstock writes: >I would guess the focus here was on jobs, plain and simple. >Maybe installed mainframe MIPS are increasing, but jobs, >especially for z/OS staff, appear to be declining (esp. in >the US, but some on the list have mentioned similar trends >in Europe).
I'm not sure if that's true or not, but let's focus on the U.S. labor market and sanity check a couple areas: 1. Have IT jobs *in general* been declining in the U.S. in recent years? Heck yes. It's not as bad as, say, the automotive sector, but it hasn't been good for IT staff in the first decade of the new millenium. The IT job market has yet to recover fully from the dot-com bust. But the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics forecasts strong growth in IT jobs over the next decade (mainframe included), with the possible exception of computer programming (i.e. direct writing of code), which is forecast to decline about 3 percent over the decade. (Coding is expected to move outside the U.S. faster than growth in the field, basically.) That said, in 2001 BLS forecast strong growth in IT jobs of as much as 100 percent in the decade for certain categories. That just didn't happen. So even the experts can get the forecasts wrong. But there is a general consensus that there will be future growth in IT jobs, including mainframe-related jobs, in the U.S. 2. Have jobs *in general* been declining in the U.S. in recent years? Heck yes. The U.S. is in the midst of a terrible labor recession, with the U3 unemployment rate sitting at just shy of 10%, or roughly twice the rate of the dot-com years. Moreover, the entire decade consisted of slow job growth at best. It was a terrible decade for nearly all workers in the U.S., and there's no general employment recovery in sight yet. 3. Mainframe labor productivity has improved substantially and continues to improve. Is that "bad"? Well, it does mean mainframe owners need fewer person-hours than they did in the past to produce the same mainframe-related output value. Then again, most rational employers steer their investments and operations budgets toward higher productivity areas, so that's good for mainframers. If you're more productive than others -- you sure do seem to be -- then to the extent there's competition for resources you'll do better, on average. For what it's worth, I largely disagree with the rest of your comments, Steve. In particular, I've previously (and often) pointed out the fact that IBM has repeatedly and substantially reduced pricing and increased value *across the mainframe board* on a sustained basis for at least 10 years -- heck, it's right in The Mainframe Charter as our CEO's commitment to our customers. Yet people want to deny that reality, too, and even suggest conspiracy theories about z/OS. Sorry, I'm just tired of the conspiracy theories, especially when I've just spent the past several days working full time on serving the needs of another prospective new z/OS customer with as much institutional support as I could ever want or need. Perhaps too much. :-) Good grief, enough already! - - - - - Timothy Sipples IBM Consulting Enterprise Architect for New, Advanced, and/or Innovative Solutions (VCT) Based in Singapore & Serving the "Growth Markets" E-Mail: [email protected] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
